Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act
Me, I'm pulling for Massachusetts on this one. For one thing, the Attorney General is right -- the "Defense of Marriage Act" is a Federal intrusion on State authority. Where in the Constitution do the States delegate authority to define marriage?
But this could get REAL interesting. If Massachusetts loses its suit, it might have to invoke Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun to nullify the act. States' Rights will get another boost, and conservative States will have yet another reason to pull out of this evil Empire. Win-win! via memeorandom.
posted by Old Rebel @ Wednesday, July 08, 2009
8 Comments
Links to this post
8 Comments:
Good question that people dont ever ask.
Why is government intruding in the union of marriage at all? The government should treat everyone equally regardless of who they decide to partner with.
Marriage is a religious matter, NOT a civil matter at all. If people want to get married, by all means, let them. But I disagree with the idea of government marriage LICENSES at all. Who dare gives them the authority to control and govern our private lives?
I may not even get a marriage license when I get married. Secede from their rules.
Rob though I'm sympathetic to the ideal you put forward; in its execution it would be a recognition gay marriage, bigomy or whatever people should happen to call marriage. A large number of rights are connected with marriage; such as inheritance, taxes and others. Like it or not government is involved in recognising or not recognising marriages.
Harold and Rob:
I've given it some thought, and I think there is middle ground here.
Marriage is a Sacrament and falls under the jurisdiction of The Church. Therefore, who can and cannot marry falls under the control of The Church according to Her dogma and teaching. Here in the South, that puts and end to any questions about sodomite 'unions' in all but a handful of instances. This also means that The Church exercises exclusive authority over the possible dissolution of a marriage and the custody of children (as children are a gift from God, not the property of the state, and The Church has a stake in the salvation of their souls).
As for other civil issues appertaining to marriage, The Church can issue a certificate of marriage (as is routinely done by mine, the Catholic Church) which the state could recognise for civil law purposes like inheritance, taxes, banking, etc.
It seems to me that this kind of arrangement puts the various jurisdictions back in its rightful spheres. It's a win-win.
Mark
"Here in the South, that puts and end to any questions about sodomite 'unions' in all but a handful of instances."
Pray tell what handful of sodomite union questions were/are unanswered here in Dixie?
I hope none are allowed to remain!
Mark, I wish that all Southrons were traditional Christians. I like you am Catholic. But short of having an established church that the state government would defer to on such questions; permitting marriage to be defined by the differing Christian communities would be paramount to recognising sodomite "marriage". Even disregarding Unitarians (as non-Christian) there are more than a few Christian communities that support sodomite "marriage". Would the state governments have to accept these "marriages" or perhaps a polygamous marriage?
Harold & Ronnie:
When I wrote that sodomite 'unions' would only occur in a handful of instances, I had in mind the liberal wings of the Episcopalians and Presbyterians who have allowed such nonsense. They do dot the South here and there. However, I'm convinced that the overwhelming majority (perhaps 90%+) of Southern Christians stand firmly upon the traditional and scriptural condemnations of sodomy. Likewise, they stand as firmly upon the sanctity and grace of Christian marriage between a man and woman.
As for State recognition of sodomite 'unions' or polygamy, note that I wrote that the State COULD recognise a Church issued marriage certificate. That leaves room for discretion by the State. Could recognise does not imply MUST recognise. Contrary to the claims of the modern, secular humanists, human beings can't hang their souls and consciences on the bush as they enter the halls of government. Our morality comes in with us; therefore, it is more than likely that State and local governments would enact statutes prohibiting the recognition of anything but traditional, Christian marriage.
We have to recognise that we can't have it all, but we can do what's necessary to arrest evil as much as possible. Liberty is a bitch sometimes, as we have to admit that we can't stop everyone from doing wrong. But, we can catch and prosecute them when they do. My argument for returning the control of marriage to the proper sphere of The Church is, I think, a good first step in the right direction. In my mind, it would sure as hell beat the arrangement under which we suffer now.
Massachusetts has been at the forefront of this battle for a long time. Maybe the seminal case in Tenth Amendment law was Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) when the state unsuccessfully challenged the first federal prenatal care bill in the Supreme Court.
In recent years, Massachusetts has been trying to enforce environmental regulations on Logan Airport that are tougher than federal standards. [Obama's new cap-and-trade bill excludes aircraft, believe it or not.] Why Massachusetts would want to impose tougher restrictions on its own airport is beyond me, but hey, that's state's rights for you.
In 2007, the Supreme Court handed Massachusetts a victory in Massachusetts v. EPA, allowing the state to impose tougher-than-federal standards on greenhouse gases. But the court said its decision only allows "a State to assert its rights under federal law," not "to protect her citizens from the operation of federal statutes."
So yes -- this could get interesting as the judiciary has to decide what it values more: the "supremacy" of federal statutes, or the social liberalism reflected in the state statute. Unfortunately, I think I know which side most "conservatives" will be on.
Mark, constitutional jurisprudence as least as it exists presently prohibits this excessive entanglement with religion. What you recommend is that the state governments choose which Christian traditions it will recognise as legitimate and which it will not based on what the majority support. I hate to tell you but not too many years ago the great majority of all Christians rejected divorce and birth control.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home